There can never be a collective judgment ,, a collective opinion is possible and more commonly a crowd behavior and none of them can give a responsible alternative. That is possible by one or a small number of similarly intelligent persons who are objective enough sans any personal emotional prejdices.

Surely Yes p For it is the Real You... even if you should lose touch [attachment] with your name fame home and kinfolks YOU can still exist with a sense of ;belonging' to the world and the world belonging to you - If you are in touch with your Inner Self the Intuition -- and that as not needing any endorsement from any other then you exist as an Absolute -- Self-willed Individual.

Yes Freedom can be taken to mean 'a universal licence to be good' and that better include 'to one and all and to youeself too' .. because if I do not make 'my freedom known' the world around can 'fetter me in' for their specific purposes.

Worst of all is the so-termed political ideology - 'Secularism' which is for sure an intended 'irreligious state' or a confusing 'all religion political recognition'; .. The illogical and a redundant political ideology like this can only frustrate both politics and religion.

Al-truism is not any 'self sacrifice' -- It is a 'non judgmental' principle which accepts human follies and frailings 'as such'... and its core thought is plain acceptence . Altruism is the principle of a mendicant or a Saint and it contrasts itself with the 'narrower' notions like a State rule or a community ethics. Altruism can also be said to mean 'Scientfic' - which is similarly an objective-positive statement of truth as such without any right or wrong verdicts.

A 'Collectivism' which holds the 'group' as the primary and the standard of moral value. It can only be 'customary' it cannot be so in terms of the individual-fundamental. Safeguarding the individual ' life' and 'honour' are indeed the two cardinal human concerns and hence the term 'collective judgment' can only mean a human concerted assertion [judgment] of the preservation of human life and honour and punishment for any uncivic or criminal damage to them. So - just human 'collectivism' is not necessirily any valid human universal authority - for it is a mere collection of human individuals - may be with particular intersts like the 'lobbies'.

As the efficacy/usefulness of new ideas have to be judged either by rigorous logic or actualization attempts - a 'collective judgement' can be just an opinion or wish-vote, hence -- more than the collective judgment 'progress depends on individuals being free to back their own judgment despite collective disapproval' - provided of course the individual in question is not mistaking his/her 'wishful thinking' as any rigorous logical thinking!

Given the fact that 'morals' or morality is indeed the basis for laws - virtually law is only a legal formalization of the 'particular contexts of morality'- So then - how is it that in modernday assessments of morals and law 'equation' morality has come to be considered as 'somewhat lower than law' in terms of rigorous definition and worse still that morals -having wrongly gotten equated with custom is even considered as being 'outside the legal framework' ? Is it not true that - When 'Justie prevails' - It is in fact 'Morals' that is prevailed and not the 'law'.as such?

Macaulay is right in the sense an economically deprived and an intellectually challenged electorate tends to ask for a government that 'doles out' often and also one that always preoccupies itself of mundane and secular matters without wanting a debate based dialogue between the governed and the government to arrive at a 'long term policy' that is most natural to the Nation.

An excellent guide towards good politics - that particularly as the citizens' committment towards excercising their political rights in earnest. Yes - the success or failure does depend on the degree of political decadence-- but that is no reason why we get to know what a citizen ought to be doing.

Yes - we are in a perpetual state of 'liberating ourselves' till we reach a state 'so free' that we dont feel the need to liberate ourselves - Thats when we just keep doing the work at hand - without being bound by its outcome too intently.

As it happens - the incumbent government very easily gets to turn the Nation's military and police against its own citizenery - in the event of an ugsurge by the latter - that - even when it is a rightful one. So , the licensing of guns to the general citizenery will certainly go towards checking any illegitimate use of force by the incumbent government.

Altruism - I thought meant the implict acceptence that 'Everybody and Everything that we perceive in the world is as True as our own Being - and that with equal count'. Logically enough it befitted only a philosopher or a theoretical scientist and all others's life-oursuits were with narrower gamut of considered values - as for instance a King is expected and required to 'be partial to his own land and people' vis a vis all others.

This political duality of Right & Left came about ONLY as in terms of the Seating Arrangement in the Parliament... where Pro-Labour/Liberals so to say sat on the left of the dias and the Pro-Capital or the Conservatives sat to the right of the dias.
Given the fact of the ideologies mentioned therein are 'necessarily' functionall complementary... it is quite stupid of us to have equated them with the right ^ left divide which is in fact opposite of one another.
How far from Truth have we traversed with this illogical misreading into reality?
So politically speaking the modernday political talk is a meaningless verbiage . and the human tragedies that we are sufferring is because of the disbursement of the excequer funds along these non-real differences !!

No I dont agree. I assert that Human individual is paramount.
In Democracies of the modern times we do find the dangerous event of politically manipulated and self-aggrandizing 'majority public' which gets dangerously detrimental to a minority of very valuable humanly oriented individuals.